This paper examines the influence of neoliberalism on the design, development, and delivery of a Sport for Development (SFD) programme in the United Kingdom and is the first to do so using an empirical case study globally focusing on military veterans. Drawing on an 18-month ethnography, this study reveals the neoliberal pressures faced by individuals working in SFD in relation to achieving programme aims, developing productive partnerships, and shaping delivery approach. We argue that the neoliberal context, within which this SFD programme is operating, limits the potential of such programmes to achieve their social justice objectives and the possible scope of their impact. Less attention should be placed on quantifiable measures and performance frameworks, and those working in SFD should challenge the neoliberal structures that limit their necessary and important work. We call for SFD programmes and staff to adopt alternative and sustainable approaches that allow them to address complex objectives, demonstrate this in participatory and innovative ways, and maintain productive partnerships. This paper offers an empirical example of the broader social forces limiting the potential of SFD for achieving their stated aims, and the novel policy challenges experienced by staff as they work to navigate neoliberal pressures and expectations.

Over the last 20 years, the growing recognition of sport as an enabler of sustainable development has allowed Sport for Development (SFD) to emerge as a dynamic research field featuring contributions from a wide range of scholarly disciplines. Within this research, evaluation has played a prominent role, especially against the background of omnipresent demands to ‘prove impact’ and legitimize the field. Despite the growth of scholarly activity, the field remains largely scattered with limited interdisciplinary engagement. This article presents an overview of the conceptualization and implementation of SFD research and evaluation, encompassing study types and methodological approaches. Findings were generated from a scoping review of publications on research and evaluation activities in the SFD field, guided by the newly proposed Evaluation Research Framework. They highlight that the field is suffering from terminological imprecisions that lead to vague and often undifferentiated debates about methodologies and approaches. Moreover, there remains a limited progression of theoretical advancements in SFD, with purposeful engagement across disciplines and innovative developments still being underutilized. We conclude that if SFD scholars remain within their disciplinary silos and do not move towards a common interdisciplinary research understanding, the field will continue to suffer from confusing theorization processes with limited prospects for further academic advancement and practical development.